| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
O'Bruadair
Major
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 224
Location: Close to the ground
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 9:40 am Post subject: the beginning of some understanding (for those who want it) |
 |
|
A comparison of the wealth of 4 States in 1860
State----pop.---Total real value---Per Capita
Ala. 964,201 $556,725,646 $577.40
MISS. 791,305 $507,720,484 $641.62
MASS. 1,231,066 $321,465,759 $261.13
CONN. 460,147 $151,058,835 $328.28
Conclusions: As can be readily seen from the numbers above, the per capita wealth of Mississippi in 1860, (all races and bond status included) was nearly 2 and ½ times that of Massachusetts.
The actual disparity in real wealth between the average free citizen of Mississippi and the average free citizen of Massachusetts must be reckoned to be very much greater than this however, and for several reasons. Most Black Mississippians (about 40% of the total) were slaves. Most slaves owned little or no personal property. Most free Mississippians of the time were landowners and/or had the use of large tracts of free range for livestock grazing and hunting. Most of what they ate and wore they produced themselves. The average mill hand in Massachusetts on the other hand owned no land and there was no free range grazing and thus he had to purchase everything he ate or wore with his meagre wages.
The politically correct will of course look at these statistics and immediately protest that much of the personal wealth of the South was in the value of the slaves themselves. While this is certainly true does that change anything? As much as we abhor the practice of putting a dollar value on a human being in the present this changes the comparison in real terms not a whit. Slavery was a morally reprehensible practice but slaves STILL represented real wealth.
Besides that cold reality if we left the value of human chattel out of the equation to be consistent we would have to leave the slave population out of the numbers also. If we did this the relative wealth would be changed very little.
However you look at the numbers the fact remains that the average Southerner was MUCH wealthier than the average northerner in 1860.
BTW the average personal wealth for the entire US in 1860 was around $380. The average for both Pennsylvania and New York, the two states recently sited on this forum as examples of “wealthy northern states” (because of their advanced industrial development) was LESS THAN $200!. As I have said before wealth and industrialization are most certainly not the same thing and people most certainly WILL pay for agricultural products and raw materials (go ask Prince Saud)
Question: How did it happen that Mississippi and Alabama went from being by far the wealthiest two States in the US in 1860 to the two poorest not only in 1870 but for the next 135 years (and still so now and for the foreseeable future)?
If you can come to an understanding of WHY this is so you will have learned the real reasons for not only the War Between the States but those for much of the history and politics of the United States down to this day.
Data From: http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/state.php
Historical Census Browser, Geospatial and Statistical Data Center
University of Virginia Library • PO Box 400129
Charlottesville VA 22904-4129
_________________
"The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel."
Charles DI CKENS |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nick
Sergeant Major
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 51
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 7:36 am Post subject: |
| |
|
Youve put a good site to a bad use, it is not intended to be used, or more correctly abused, in the manner you done.
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1860e-05.pdf
Already provides what you wanted to work out, without your made up numbers that do not bear any realtionship worth talking about to reality.
http://www.vcdh.virginia.edu/ECAI.paper.html
Does what you attempted and found this:-
As a group slaveholders were extremely wealthy in the South. Their average wealth in 1860 was $24,748, almost fourteen times greater than that of nonslaveholders ($1,781). They accounted for 26 percent of the white population in 1860 and they owned 93 percent of "agricultural wealth."
Or in short your average slave holder was wealthier than everyone else, but was a minority in the south in which the majorty were less wealthy than than everyone else.In 1830, 35 percent of Southern households included slaves. By 1860 the figure stood at 26 percent, with fewer than 5 percent of white households owning 20 or more slaves, southern society bwas very rigid in finincial mobility, and any average for the south is therefore very misleading as society simply had a a mega elite rich and have nots.
this is also of note of the differcne between 60 -70, and you ought to look at 5- and earlier to see what trends were present.
http://www.mcgill.ca/files/economics/ferrie.pdf
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/dward/classes/powpart/ecoinequality.html
As Osberg notes in his excellent study of economic inequality in the U.S. (quoting Jones), "`For a general statement, it would seem that the most likely pattern of change in the United States as a whole over the past two centuries was 1) some increase in wealth inequality to 1860-70, 2) possibly continued to a somewhat higher degree of concentration, which may have peaked around 1890, or 1929, or 1940, 3) a mild downdrift in inequality to the 1950's and 4) little change" (p. 47) until 1980. In the past two decades, the trend toward increasing concentration of wealth has returned. By way of a snap shot in three different centuries, in 1774 the top 10% owned 45% of all wealth, in 1870 they owned 66% of wealth, and in 1983 they owned 69% of wealth. (Brouwer, p. 42) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
O'Bruadair
Major
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 224
Location: Close to the ground
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 7:52 pm Post subject: |
| |
|
Huh?
If the numbers used in the above were "made up" then please contact the US census bureau and inform them. You seem to have found some 140 year old errors that they were not aware of!
You also seem to have missed the point of my post entirely so I’ll attempt to make it again.
The South was MUCH wealthier on a per capita basis in 1860 than the north. For the next 147 years the South has been and still is MUCH poorer. Therein lies the real reasons for the war.
How evenly that wealth was distributed in either the South or the north then or now is irrelevant to that point.
Also, the “Valley of the Shadow project” is a comparison of only two counties, one in Virginia and one in Pennsylvania. Can’t see that that has a whole lot to do with what I said here.
_________________
"The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel."
Charles DI CKENS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cwalenta999
Sergeant Major
Joined: 17 Mar 2007
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 10:31 pm Post subject: Per Capita Wealth vs. Per Capita Income |
| |
|
By 1860 the North's GNP is approx. three times greater than the South, its population disparity is 22 mil to 9 mil. It implies that per capita income in the North is higher (I don't stand by these numbers though because frankly economic numbers coming out of the period are abyssmal) The $4.4853 billion dollar estimate for US GDP in 1860 is from here: http://eh.net/hmit/gdp/GDPsource.htm and the site flat out tells you "central point to keep in mind is that the quality of the data deteriorates the farther back in time one goes. The reason for this is simple: GDP data were not collected or even defined before the 1930s and thus any measures for years before 1932 rely on sources that were not collected for the purpose of constructing national income and product accounts."
Then of course we get to per capita wealth and O'B is showing figures in the South twice that in the North. In O'B's previous post he does note that chattel slavery was included in those statistics. To make the per capita wealth statistics relevant the value of the slaves needs to be determined. I did some quick searches on it, saw one number, 2.7 billion (a number from an article estimating the amount Feds would have to compensate slave owners to buy-out all slaves, which is really only interesting hypothetically because the cost of the war exceeded this amount), not sure of its accuracy, saw another number that a 'prime field hand' in 1860 would sell for $1,800 (obviously not all slaves are field hands).
Frankly, I don't think the statistics are worth debating. Probably the most reliable figure I see is the value of cotton exports as a percentage of total exports and the figure is about 50% of total exports. I consider this more reliable because there were people actually at the docks counting this stuff. I think its clear that the South, as a region, is clearly worth keeping.
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/ransom.civil.war.us |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick
Sergeant Major
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 51
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 5:17 am Post subject: |
| |
|
| O'Bruadair wrote: | Huh?
If the numbers used in the above were "made up" then please contact the US census bureau and inform them. You seem to have found some 140 year old errors that they were not aware of! |
No, the Census data, as far as it goes is not the problem, its what you then did with it thats the probelm. Its a question of methodolgy and intrepation. The site is not set up to undertake the methodology you tried , specie for instance is not included, so any dircetor of banks and wealth they own is not included, and there are many other variables not included in the two boxes you checked to get the numbers for wealth.
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?-geo_id=01000US&-tm_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00270&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U#?380,328
As you can see if you look at the US census site they are fully aware of what can and can not be adduced, which is why they do not agree with your numbers, as your not comparing like methodolgies.
| Quote: |
You also seem to have missed the point of my post entirely so I’ll attempt to make it again.
The South was MUCH wealthier on a per capita basis in 1860 than the north. For the next 147 years the South has been and still is MUCH poorer. Therein lies the real reasons for the war. |
interegional movement can expalin a lot of that, as many studys of pop movement and wealth distribution movement show, secondly wealth generaly ment males, and since 40% of many southern states lost their lives, that wealth was lost, and waht was left had to repay the war years back taxes, which further skews the micro view of relative wealth for states that secceded, and for ther macro view 50-70 shows that there was a dcline in relative wealth in the south to the west and mid west and it was generaly speaking, the wealthy who migrated and took there wealth with them, and taht included slaves, SC saw a huge decline in its slave pop as they went with their owners to the new states, so much so that they pressed for the re introduction of teh salve trade as the only remedy, If the comparison be extended to the Western States, it will be attended with similar results--as for instance, Kentucky and Ohio. The former in 1790 containing a population of seventy-three thousand, the latter only three thousand; but in 1840, the population of Ohio amounted to one million five hundred and twenty thousand (1,520,000), while that of Kentucky was only seven hundred and eighty thousand, (780,000).From 1830 to 1840 the population of Virginia and the Carolinas made almost no advance. On the other hand, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, increased rapidly. This was simple economic migration for the better ment of those who undertook it, not a cause of war!!.
You can claim what you want, but so far youve not supported it very well, it also contradicts a number of economic works by economists.
| Quote: |
How evenly that wealth was distributed in either the South or the north then or now is irrelevant to that point. |
Of course it is relavent. 1% of the USA pop owned 53% of all the wealth and 51% of the pop owned under 1% of the wealth, the inequlaity of wealth distribution is central to demonstarting that your use of average wealth has no merit, it was after all what the republicans said was wrong with southgern society, the rigid imobility of movement of its citizens in terms of wealth mobility, when congress wanted to give new land to citizens the south forced these parcels to be of plantation size, to extend their system into new states, once the war caame the size of land parcels falls to taht of a family sized plot and 100, of 000s familys benifited, wheras past blocking and forcing of plot size by the south had ment only a few had gained.
Fantasy example to show the point your saying has no relavence. South has 10 people, 9 had $10 and 1 has $1500, North has 20 peple, 15 have $15, 4 have $1 and 1 has %100. An average wealth for the North is roughy comparable to what the majority of its pop actually has, while in the south it has no bearing at all!.
| Quote: |
Also, the “Valley of the Shadow project” is a comparison of only two counties, one in Virginia and one in Pennsylvania. Can’t see that that has a whole lot to do with what I said here. |
Well it gave an example of wealth distribution which is consistant with other states edu sites, you commented that "BTW the average personal wealth for the entire US in 1860 was around $380" which is of course comple rubbish, because your methodolgy is comlete rubbish.
Last edited by Nick on Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:40 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick
Sergeant Major
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 51
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:38 am Post subject: |
| |
|
| O'Bruadair wrote: |
You also seem to have missed the point of my post entirely so I’ll attempt to make it again.
. |
No i missed that not at all, its just that its complet nonsense and contradicts every major economist works pre war and post war, how effiecent of you....contradicts the numbers uded to teach in economocs class and history classes, whic use variations of Time on teh cross and without consent or contract by fogel and engerman, one of which won aNoble prize for answerinhg questions of ecomics that were outstanding till he devised the statastical methods to empiricly answer them.
ECONOMIC GROWTH IN THE SOUTH, 1840-1860 /
The Course of Economic Growth in the South, 1840-1860
The construction of regional income accounts for the nineteenth century, like the estimation of regional efficiency indexes, is an arduous task. Work on these accounts for the census years between 1840 and 1860, which was launched in the early 1950s, is still going on today. Table 4 presents the regional income estimates which have now been in use for about half a decade. A recent paper has suggested that the estimate of southern income for 1840 may be too low;the same criticism may also apply to the figure for 1860.
If these proposed corrections hold up, it will be necessary to alter some of the details of the analysis that follows, but' the main thrust of the argument will not be affected. Rather, the proposed corrections will merely serve to strengthen the argument.
Table 4 shows that in both 1840 and 1860 per capita income in the North was higher than in the South. In 1840 the South had an average income which was only 69 percent that of the North's. In 1860 southern per capita income was still only 73 percent as high as in the North.
These figures might appear to sustain Helper's contention that the South was a poverty-ridden, stagnant economy in the process of sinking into "comparative imbecility and obscurity"; that under the burden of slavery the South had been reduced to the status of a colonial nation - "the dependencyof a mother country." No such inference is warranted, however, merely because of the existence of a 25 percent gap between the North and the South in the level of per capita income in 1860. Before any conclusion can be drawn, it must first be determined whether the gap means that, by the standards of the time, the South was poor or that the North was extraordinarily rich.
Progress toward the resolution of this issue can be madeby disaggregating the North into two subregions: the Northeast, and the north central subregions. This is done in table 4, which shows that the northern advantage over the South was due entirely to the extraordinarily high income of the Northeast. Per capita income in the north central states was not only less than half as high as in the Northeast; it was 14 percent lower than per capita income in the South. If the South was a poverty-ridden "colonial dependency," how are we to characterize the states that occupy the territqry running from the western border of Pennsylvania to the western border of Nebraska - states usually thought of as examples of high prosperity and rapid growth during the antebellum era?
Far from being poverty-stricken, the South was quite rich by the standards of the antebellum era. If we treat the North and South as separate nations and rank them among the countries of the world, the South would stand as the fourth richest nation of the world in 1860. The South was richer than France, richer than Germany, richer than Denmark, richer than any of the countries of Europe except England (see table 5). Presentation of southern per capita income in 1860 dollars instead of 1973 dollars tends to cloak the extent of southern economic attainment. The South was not only rich by antebellum standards but also by relatively recent standards. Indeed, a country as advanced as Italy did not achieve the southern level of per capita income until the eve of World War 11.
Table 4
Per Capita Income by Region for 1840 and 1860 (in 1860 prices).
AVERAGE ANNUAL RATES OF CHANGE 1840 1860 (PERCENT)
National Average $ 96 $128 1.4 North: 109 141 1.3 Northeast 129 181 1.7 North Central 65 89 1.6 South: 74 103 1.7 South Atlantic 66 84 1.2 East South Central 69 89 1.3 West South Central 151 184 1.0
(ommited to scan in map showing states making up the regioanl groupings, W S Central is Texas/Okl/ark/La, E SCentral is Miss/ALA/Tenn,Ky and so on.
* See appendix B for a discussion of the construction of these estimates. The per capita income figures are for the entire population, free and slave.
So you see your so far off how the subject is taught in the USA to be funny, in a wierd sort of way... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cwalenta999
Sergeant Major
Joined: 17 Mar 2007
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:50 pm Post subject: ? |
| |
|
In your previous post it first says the South is backward, in the second half it says the South is wealthy. Also there is a distinction between per capita wealth and per capita income, problem is how do you isolate the effect of counting slaves in the per capita wealth stats?
In yet a previous post O'B discounts income equality and ironically, for purposes of his thesis, which I don't subscribe to, he is correct, income equality would be irrelevant because while it matters to the people with nothing, covetous eyes are always drawn to the wealth.
For purposes of O'B's thesis I truly don't think its worth arguing over the economic data of the period because it doesn't really matter if the South is wealthier or not as wealthy, the question is really is it worth enough? (Obviously the European powers are carving out empires filled with countries that aren't as prosperous as Western nations) I think that question can be answered with a yes (South is half the land and a third of the people), though I think the motives are probably more closely linked with 'Manifest Destiny' than they are with 'wealth seizure.' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick
Sergeant Major
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 51
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 4:28 am Post subject: Re: ? |
| |
|
| cwalenta999 wrote: | | In your previous post it first says the South is backward, in the second half it says the South is wealthy. |
I pasted in portion that comes after examining Olmsted/helper/cairns ( chief economists works of the period) that use the 1848 per capita methodology first worked out by another economist to expalian the relative worth of the nation. The South (those that secceded as a nation would rank 4 in the world in per capita wealth and the North ranked first, when Helper says it was backward he was refering to its relative postion to the North, because it had a lower per capita income, when you read that the south was wealthy it refers to the fact that as seperate nation the South was very wealthy in global terms. the south was only poor/backward when compared to the richer north. it had since 1790 never equlled the northwern states per caita income or wealth, it could not do so for a number of reasons, geography for instcne, the NE stastes rivers were perfect in tidal rise etc for generating water power that then fuelled industry, Southern rivers did not, the northern states had the mineral resources that the southern states lacked and so on.
No economist has every show the south to be richer than the north, since in 48 and 52 the means of deteriming the per capita were first worked out and applied by economists.
| Quote: |
Also there is a distinction between per capita wealth and per capita income, problem is how do you isolate the effect of counting slaves in the per capita wealth stats? |
See Without consent or contract, or Time on the cross, statistal tables for methodolgy and books end.
You must have missed where i pointed out that the breakdown of wealth is important in determing the usfullness of per capita data, the whole reason is was worked out was so that it had some pratcial use, if it did not reflect relity then it was useless for determing policy.
Or as i already said, the didtribution of wealth requires you breakdown pop into slave holding and non slaveholding population because each section generates vastly different data and if you combine it, you get averages that bear no relation to circumstances and nproduce policys that have not the disired effect because your working on avarages that no one at all is represented in society.
| Quote: |
In yet a previous post O'B discounts income equality and ironically, for purposes of his thesis, which I don't subscribe to, he is correct, income equality would be irrelevant because while it matters to the people with nothing, covetous eyes are always drawn to the wealth. |
Your both confused and wrong. How can per capita wealth be determined, when 4 million slaves who cannot own the proprty that is being used to deteromine wealth because they are that proprty, have been included in his guess work?. If you dont grasp that the distribution of wealth in society has a profound effect on the measurement of avarage wealth, i cant help that or you.
Income equality is a central feature of per capita income determination, without it the term is usless for the purpose it was deisgned for.
| Quote: |
For purposes of O'B's thesis I truly don't think its worth arguing over the economic data of the period because it doesn't really matter if the South is wealthier or not as wealthy, the question is really is it worth enough? (Obviously the European powers are carving out empires filled with countries that aren't as prosperous as Western nations) I think that question can be answered with a yes (South is half the land and a third of the people), though I think the motives are probably more closely linked with 'Manifest Destiny' than they are with 'wealth seizure.' |
Nope his thesis is complete rubbish as it contradicts every economic work ever undertaken, besides it not a thesis, its a brain fart of no merit as it has no basis in fact or reality.
If you look at the Va edu site he used, you will see under what you cannot do with this data sets, which he then did , got a set of data which is fantasy data without any relavence to reality.http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/past_years.html heres one place you get the raw data online or in book form i have already pasted in a section than traces economic develpment from 1790 onwards, no one argues the south was ahead in per capita income, because the data simply shows the reverese to be true, mwhich was in part why the Soputh secceded, as even with the kind of traifs it had in place the Southern economy/wealth was growing 30% faster than in northern states, and lowering the gap between north and Soth per capita income, this would all change aagin with the Morril tarrif comming in from the Republiocan partys instigation, and the wheel *beep* turn and the souths economic devlopment brate of increase would slow and possibly retard, while the richer north woud become richer still.
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/CT1970p1-07.pdf
thats without looking at the diffeence in how per capita is asigned in pre and WBTS period and modern usage of the same term.
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/CT1970p2-13.pdf
so you see, if you asign per capita RR miles you will see the North has 108 and the south 100, and this 8% difference is hardly worth mentioning, yet it reality the RR advanatge of the North was overwhelming, militaily and economicly, which is why his whole argument is a baseless factuall, and logicaly unsound into the bargain, and contradicts what they Southern commentators pre war said about relative wealth.
How he can be so wrong, on such an importnt point, while being correct on so many other issues is a wonder to me, i can only assume (which is always a bad thing to do) he has been seduced by some persuasive reviosonist material that has yet to cross to my side of the pond. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cwalenta999
Sergeant Major
Joined: 17 Mar 2007
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 7:56 am Post subject: Income Inequality |
| |
|
"If you dont grasp that the distribution of wealth in society has a profound effect on the measurement of avarage wealth, i cant help that or you."
No, actually I do understand that and agree that a society/economic system capable of spreading income among all members of society does so in a more equitable manner than a society experiencing high income inequality. And while I am not really up on the economic data from the period, obviously a society with slaves is probably going to be experiencing very high income inequality.
But that is not really what O'B is saying. O'B's thesis is that the North goes to war to control Southern wealth and to bolster this position he says that the South is wealthy. If O'B's thesis is TRUE then income inequality really doesn't matter because if North's motive is to seize wealth well then it really doesn't matter who has the wealth as long as its there to seize. (It would even seem you would probably even prefer to invade a country with high income inequality because the wealth is concentrated in few individuals and probably easier to confiscate?)
FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE, I don't think income inequality matters. (and I say 'for purposes of his thesis' and say that income inequality obviously matters if you're living in the society)
I even go on to say that I don't think the South's actual wealth, WHATEVER IT IS, really doesn't matter, and AGAIN for purposes of O'B's thesis. I say this because there are examples from the period of nationas carving out empires from other nations that are obviously poorer and yet there is still a benefit to the conqueror and I also think its obviously that the South as a region is important to the whole and does account for about half the land, 1/3 of the people and half the exports, so from my point of view its definitely worth keeping. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick
Sergeant Major
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 51
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 9:13 am Post subject: Re: Income Inequality |
| |
|
| cwalenta999 wrote: | "If you dont grasp that the distribution of wealth in society has a profound effect on the measurement of avarage wealth, i cant help that or you."
No, actually I do understand that and agree that a society/economic system capable of spreading income among all members of society does so in a more equitable manner than a society experiencing high income inequality. And while I am not really up on the economic data from the period, obviously a society with slaves is probably going to be experiencing very high income inequality. |
Itappears we are in agreement then, and was going off tack a little.
[quote]
But that is not really what O'B is saying. O'B's thesis is that the North goes to war to control Southern wealth and to bolster this position he says that the South is wealthy. If O'B's thesis is TRUE then income inequality really doesn't matter because if North's motive is to seize wealth well then it really doesn't matter who has the wealth as long as its there to seize. (It would even seem you would probably even prefer to invade a country with high income inequality because the wealth is concentrated in few individuals and probably easier to confiscate?)[quote]
Ok, lets look at that point then. Wht is the origin of war?, war is theft, it is the use of force to gain/aquire that which we cannot gain/aquire by any other means. Whic is why city walls come after city grain store in acrcheology. So that point is mererly a comment on what every war is, theft of that which you do not control.
Hardly worth makeing that point now is it?. Its far more likly that he means the South was *plundered*
because it was relativly wealthy, quite how it has remained *plundered*by every poltical party since is another part of his argument that baffles me.
| Quote: |
FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE, I don't think income inequality matters. (and I say 'for purposes of his thesis' and say that income inequality obviously matters if you're living in the society) |
Ok, since the Fderal government already controlled the Suthern resources, it went to war rather than relinquish control of them, which is the states right argument meerly expressed in economic rather than political terminology. again nothing new or worth mentioning, same argument meerly expressed differntly.
did the North go to war to gain control the 3billion
value
of slaves only to then write off the purpose of the war and set them free?, and lose what the purpose of the war was?.
| Quote: |
I even go on to say that I don't think the South's actual wealth, WHATEVER IT IS, really doesn't matter, and AGAIN for purposes of O'B's thesis. I say this because there are examples from the period of nationas carving out empires from other nations that are obviously poorer and yet there is still a benefit to the conqueror and I also think its obviously that the South as a region is important to the whole and does account for about half the land, 1/3 of the people and half the exports, so from my point of view its definitely worth keeping. |
well thats the whole point, from a politcial perspective, it was never the norths or the Federal government to have and to hold, or it was. dressing it up as an economic argument does not change the legal and politcial points that deterimine the right or wrongness of either posistion.
now the Uk took about a quurter of the worlds land surface from its sov owners and made them part of our
Empire, becuae every market economy requires the control of resources and amrkets, to be profitable, we however never put forth the argument those states were not sov, and most have since re asserted that sovriegnty. we wanted control of resources at source and took the mil option to do that, we could dress up our indian conquest with the Moghuls are despots or if we dont hold the region the French will and so on, but we did what we did from sound economic advatage reasons.
If the republicans were like the Uk crownand
used war to obtain wealth, why did they not invade cuba post war under grants admistaration then?, why was not canada invaded and incorporated?, if war was the weapon of choice and motive for use is aquistion of wealth?. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
O'Bruadair
Major
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 224
Location: Close to the ground
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 3:39 pm Post subject: |
| |
|
Well you have both gone off on a lot of tangents and used a lot of ink here on a point that is really relatively simple. I’ll say it one more time in another way and perhaps you will get the point.
Even if you don’t I at least got two people to think about the real reasons for the War to suppress yankee Arrogance and stop mindlessly accepting the cultural Marxist party line.
WARS, ALL WARS are about who will control the wealth.
Human beings and nations can and have come up with myriad excuses for starting wars. We have gone to war to “make the world safe for democracy” to “free the slaves” to make “small nations free” for “our States rights, to “bring democracy to the middle east, to “destroy WMD’s and even to “end all wars”.
All that BS don’t change the real reason.
The WBTS was about a huge transfer of wealth from South to north, period.
BTW I stand by the statistics in the original post. (Anyone can do the math themselves) There is a big difference in “GNP” and real personal wealth. The north had the industrial capital and output for sure that just did not and does not necessarily translate into personal wealth. Also I am well aware that how well wealth is distributed is not at all irrelevant to individuals or to societies but it most certainly IS IRRELVANT to my point.
_________________
"The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel."
Charles DI CKENS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick
Sergeant Major
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 51
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 4:36 am Post subject: |
| |
|
| O'Bruadair wrote: | Well you have both gone off on a lot of tangents and used a lot of ink here on a point that is really relatively simple. I’ll say it one more time in another way and perhaps you will get the point.
Even if you don’t I at least got two people to think about the real reasons for the War to suppress yankee Arrogance and stop mindlessly accepting the cultural Marxist party line. |
Really there is a marxist party line in USA history?.
| Quote: |
WARS, ALL WARS are about who will control the wealth. |
If its yours already then you have every right to excercise force to retain control of it, and it s not a war, its a rebelion aginst lawful actions, is the northern posistion, and USSC rulling on this, through the scale of the rebelion it can asume the atributes of being a war.
If its not yours, because you dont own it, its a unlawful use of fource to take control of it, be it land/resources or people.
Not all wars are about control of wealth, when Argentina invaded the falklands islands it did so because it had a valid claim of sovriegnty on the island, the people who lived on it at that time whoever refused to acept this and voted to remain as part of the Uk, so the Uk went to war to preserve their rights of self determination, not to continue control of the wealth of the falklnds islands, because it costs more to maintain it than it brings in by fiscal returns.
The crusades were not about control of wealth.
The French Hougonouts were not persecuted for their wealth, but for their beliefs.
When VN invaded cambodia to prevent pol Pot from exterminating the cambodian people in his year zero programe, they did so to prevent genocide, and were told by the USA that such a rifght did not exist, and unless they removed themselves from cambodia the US would use mil force against it.
Neither VN or the USA was concerned with control of wealth.
| Quote: |
Human beings and nations can and have come up with myriad excuses for starting wars. We have gone to war to “make the world safe for democracy” to “free the slaves” to make “small nations free” for “our States rights, to “bring democracy to the middle east, to “destroy WMD’s and even to “end all wars”.
All that BS don’t change the real reason. |
The real reason for every war has not a single cause, this nihlist, balck white aproach is no way to intpretate history.
| Quote: |
The WBTS was about a huge transfer of wealth from South to north, period. |
Except you cant show that was why the war came about, because no one said that was what the war was about, you even use *beep* quote about the tariff as bieng the cause of secesion.
| Quote: |
BTW I stand by the statistics in the original post. |
Itrs easier to deny a hard truth than acept youve made a comlet *beep* of yourself. Something you should work on perhaps?.
| Quote: |
(Anyone can do the math themselves) |
You did the maths, from data that is not set up to do that maths as the disclaimer on the site cleary tells you . So please dont stand by stupidty.
George Tucker and ezra seamen were the first economist to computate per capita income as means of statistical anaysis in 1843, refining it in 48 and 52.
They showed that the south per capita was lower than the Norths, Helper/Olmstead/Debow did the same in the mid 50s to 60.
there is no dispute over per capita income in the historical record.
The dispute is your made up fantasy i dont want reality to the base of my contention, and simple hiistorcal texts that show what they do.
| Quote: |
There is a big difference in “GNP” and real personal wealth. |
Of course there isbut you did not argue that in your first post did you.
| Quote: |
The north had the industrial capital and output for sure that just did not and does not necessarily translate into personal wealth. |
Actaully it does, take 101 in economcs and get back to me. since the mineral wealth of the northern states is vastly higher than the south, simply geography and mineral depoists being where they are, also simply makes the point of imbalce of per capita income etc more liokly not to be the influence of policy, but simple geography and market forces.
| Quote: |
Also I am well aware that how well wealth is distributed is not at all irrelevant to individuals or to societies but it most certainly IS IRRELVANT to my point. |
Since your point is rubbish, i guess so, simple question, if the south was so wealthy, how come it could not finance its war of secesion except to do so by credit?, how come the poorer North outbought the CSA in forgien makets by a wide margin and payed in specie while the CSA payed in futures?, how come in 1865 the north bought more cannons from its states than the CSA built and payed for in the entire war?. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
O'Bruadair
Major
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 224
Location: Close to the ground
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 11:58 am Post subject: |
| |
|
I really have no clue what you are trying to say here and I am certain that you do not understand what I am saying either. Here are the statistics that I posted before. While these only compare 4 States (2 of the wealthiest in both regions) I believe that the overall relative comparison between north and South would certainly hold if you care to run the figures for each state in each region.
Since my contention is that within that disparity of real wealth lie the real reasons for the War to Suppress Yankee Arrogance then the comparison should be between the 11 states that actually seceded with perhaps the addition of Kentucky and Missouri and the rest of the nation.
State----pop.------Total real value------Per Capita
Ala. 964,201 $556,725,646 $577.40
MISS. 91,305 $507,720,484 $641.62
MASS. 1,231,066 $321,465,759 $261.13
CONN. 460,147 $151,058,835 $328.28
Data From: http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/state.php
Historical Census Browser, Geospatial and Statistical Data Center
University of Virginia Library • PO Box 400129
Charlottesville VA 22904-4129
You are confusing GNP and annual income with wealth. They are simply NOT THE SAME thing as WEALTH and looking at the figures you provided and those above clearly illustrate that point if you really understand what they say. (BTW you don’t say where your stats come from so I will take your word that they are accurate. Also to be directly relevant you need to find the 1860 statistics and not use those from 20 years before the war).
In my previous post I also pointed out that the REAL disparity in wealth between north and South in 1860 was very much greater than the numbers indicate.
Most Southerners were land owners and/or had ready access of large tracts of land available for free range grazing and hunting. The average Cracker in Alabama either grew or killed just about everything he ate or wore. The value of those items was “off the books” and would not have even shown up in the census data. On the other hand the average mill hand in Massachusetts had no land or free grazing and thus had to PURCHASE everything he ate or wore from his meagre wages.
Those factors are a large part of why the personal wealth was so disparate between the two regions.
Simply put the RESOURCES of the South were just much greater and FAR greater on a per capita basis than those of the north.
Here is a quote from “Cracker Culture”, Grady McWhinney that might put this in perspective for you:
“In New England” he (a yankee) boasted, “a man may put a hundred dollars in a bridge, a turnpike, a rail-road, a bank, an insurance company, or a mill dam, and thus blend his private advantage with the public good.” But in the South even the small planters squandered more money every year than most New England farmers saved in a “lifetime of toil and close economy”.
You seem to be labouring under the same preconceived notions and misunderstandings about the history of the South as most modern Southerners are.
We have always been taught and really want to believe that the South lost the war because she was poor. Nothing could be further from the truth!
The South didn’t lose the war because we were poor! We are poor because we lost the war!!
“Before the war, the South was the wealthiest part of the United States” Wikipedia
“Before the war, the South was the wealthiest part of the United States” knowledgerush
“contrary to common misconceptions, the South was the richest part of the country in 1860” Dr. Frank Towers, historian at the University of Calgary
“By 1860, the region (the South) was one of the wealthier areas of the WORLD,” (empahsis mine) Answers.com
_________________
_________________
"The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel."
Charles DI CKENS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ollie439
Sergeant
Joined: 02 May 2007
Posts: 17
Location: Alabama
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 3:01 pm Post subject: Wealthy? |
| |
|
| Of course you're wealthy, we're working for nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick
Sergeant Major
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 51
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 6:03 am Post subject: |
| |
|
O'Bruadair wrote:
I really have no clue what you are trying to say here and I am certain that you do not understand what I am saying either.
Yes your made up stats, you went to Va edu site, tried to arrive at the per capita income, which you not the site says you CANNOT DO FROM THESE DATABASE but must instead go to another link to get the source data for that, or any othe purpose purpose.
Not only do i undertstand what your saying, ive expalined to you where youve gone wrong and why your states are fantasy la la land stats. you include proprty (slaves)as part of the citizen bodty for determining the average, you pick 2 of the three top slaves owning stats in terms of popuation, and so on, and get a rubbish answer because you have chosen to work out per capita in amnner no one else thinks appropriate or usfull.
there is a reson why if you type in a search for per capita income on that site and it comes back with nothing, its beauase the database it not set up to do that calculation.
The reason i take offence at your lie and made up statastics to support it, is because i know what http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moa&cc=moa&idno=ajb8403.0001.001&q1=income&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=487
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moa&cc=moa&idno=ajb8403.0001.001&q1=income&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=487
tells me is the real figures to intpretate, you know if the souith was so wealthy, why does the north have so much income from minning/fisheriers/agriculture then eh?.
Quote:
Since my contention is that within that disparity of real wealth lie the real reasons for the War to Suppress Yankee Arrogance then the comparison should be between the 11 states that actually seceded with perhaps the addition of Kentucky and Missouri and the rest of the nation.
No your contention, one not shared by any historina or econiomist in your countrys history, is based up making up a false set of numbers that flat out contradicty every historians and economist work.
State----pop.------Total real value------Per Capita
Ala. 964,201 $556,725,646 $577.40
MISS. 91,305 $507,720,484 $641.62
MASS. 1,231,066 $321,465,759 $261.13
CONN. 460,147 $151,058,835 $328.28
Quote:
You are confusing GNP and annual income with wealth. They are simply NOT THE SAME thing as WEALTH and looking at the figures you provided and those above clearly illustrate that point if you really understand what they say.
No im not. Cite where i do this please or stop wasreing my time.
Quote:
(BTW you don’t say where your stats come from so I will take your word that they are accurate. Also to be directly relevant you need to find the 1860 statistics and not use those from 20 years before the war).
well i did tell you where they come from as i always cite data, its from the US Census data that gives per capaita income and from a economic text book used to teach in the Us education ststem.
Do you have a readiing impairmnent?, i gave the 1840 and 1860 data, to show relavemntce that at no tim ein Us history pre WBTS had the Southern states ever had a higher per capita income. per capita income when you asign it to a free white who owns slave proprty has to take into macount the upkeep on birth to grave provisions for that pproerty, so adding them in as you have done is frankly particulry unhelpfull for determing actual per capita income.
Quote:
In my previous post I also pointed out that the REAL disparity in wealth between north and South in 1860 was very much greater than the numbers indicate.
Your opinion, not backed up by anything more than i want it to be so against historical texts that demostrate what the differnce was in a quantifiable manner. Hardly a choice that takes me long to pick from
Quote:
Most Southerners were land owners and/or had ready access of large tracts of land available for free range grazing and hunting. The average Cracker in Alabama either grew or killed just about everything he ate or wore. The value of those items was “off the books” and would not have even shown up in the census data. On the other hand the average mill hand in Massachusetts had no land or free grazing and thus had to PURCHASE everything he ate or wore from his meagre wages.
you do know youve just demostarted you dont have any education at all abouty how per capita is arrived at right?.
Value of land in the North was higher than in the south, ownership of land in the north was higher than in the south, per capita, you talk about things you have not the faintest grasp off.
Quote:
Those factors are a large part of why the personal wealth was so disparate between the two regions.
Personal and disposable wealth you now want to talk about, sadly the north wins out again. try reading the census data befiore posting that which contradicts it.
Quote:
Simply put the RESOURCES of the South were just much greater and FAR greater on a per capita basis than those of the north.
You saying it does not make it so, and just points up your talking about things you dont know jack about.
[quote]
Here is a quote from “Cracker Culture”, Grady McWhinney that might put this in perspective for you:
“In New England” he (a yankee) boasted, “a man may put a hundred dollars in a bridge, a turnpike, a rail-road, a bank, an insurance company, or a mill dam, and thus blend his private advantage with the public good.” But in the South even the small planters squandered more money every year than most New England farmers saved in a “lifetime of toil and close economy”.Quote:
Opinions are not data. McWhinny quote is that a yankee invests in measrable quantifiable ivestments, while small planters squander more than yanke farmers save, hardly usfull comparitves for our or any purpose.
Quote:
You seem to be labouring under the same preconceived notions and misunderstandings about the history of the South as most modern Southerners are.
Nope, im labouring undwer your posts of utter stupidity and lack of eduction.
Quote:
We have always been taught and really want to believe that the South lost the war because she was poor. Nothing could be further from the truth!
The data told them they were poor in relation to the north in 1840 1850 and again in 1860, thats why they left, becuae while in the Union they could not excericise the fiscal policys that used what natural advantages they had to theior fullest potential.
We, or rather all those intrested in nUs history have been taught the south was poor in realtion to the North becauase thats what the economic statistcs show, and the historical reciord of the times show the Southwern leaders to believe the case to be and the remedy to it was secesion.
In a speech delivered in the Virginia Convention of 1788, Patrick Henry had predicted that the South would eventually find itself economically subjugated to the North once the latter had secured to itself a majority in the new federal Government: "This government subjects every thing to the Northern majority. Is there not, then, a settled purpose to check the Southern interest?... How can the Southern members prevent the adoption of the most oppressive mode of taxation in the Southern States, as there is a majority in favor of the Northern States?" Henry's prediction was not long in being realized. As early as 1789, the first impost bill was introduced in Congress which protected the New England fishing industry and its production of molasses, and exhibited, in the opinion of William Grayson, "a great disposition... for the advancement of commerce and manufactures in preference to agriculture." Thus, when the Union under the Constitution was but two months old, many Southerners felt that their States were already being obliged to serve the North as "the milch cow out of whom the substance would be extracted." In a pamphlet published in 1850, Muscoe Russell Garnett of Virginia wrote:
The whole amount of duties collected from the year 1791, to June 30, 1845, after deducting the drawbacks on foreign merchandise exported, was $927,050,097. Of this sum the slaveholding States paid $711,200,000, and the free States only $215,850,097. Had the same amount been paid by the two sections in the constitutional ratio of their federal population, the South would have paid only $394,707,917, and the North $532,342,180. Therefore, the slaveholding States paid $316,492,083 more than their just share, and the free States as much less.
From the days of P Henry onwards, the South had generally stood in the way of the Northern goal to make such an unjust system of taxation permanent. According to John Taylor of Virginia, a high protective tariff system, like that which existed in Great Britain, was "undoubtedly the best which has ever appeared for extracting money from the people; and commercial restrictions, both upon foreign and domestick commerce, are its most effectual means for accomplishing this object. No equal mode of enriching the party of government, and impoverishing the party of people, has ever been discovered."Nevertheless, the North clung tenaciously to its protectionist policy and managed to push through the tariff legislation of 1828 which provoked South Carolina to resistance to the general Government and nearly to secession from the Union during the Administration of Andrew Jackson. It should be noted that, by 1828, the public debt was near to extinction and, at the current rate of taxation on imported goods, a twelve to thirteen million dollar annual surplus would have been created in the Treasury. Thus, the excuse for a high tariff system as a source of Government revenue was a flimsy one at best; the so-called "Tariff of Abomination" really served no other purpose than to "rob and plunder nearly one half of the Union, for the benefit of the residue." James Spence o | | | |
Forum 
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
